Saturday, February 21, 2015

Hudson Global - Selling At 30% Less Than Activists' Cost Basis And Offers Significant Upside


Summary

  • Lone Star Value Management's cost basis is at around $3.50; stock is now at $2.30.
  • Valuation is 0.07x EV to sales; 55% of market cap is in cash.
  • Initiatives are underway to make the company consistently profitable by 2nd half of 2015.
  • Cost cutting and product shift is catalyst to move the stock meaningfully higher.
  • Price target is for $9 to $11 by late 2015 to 2016.
"From Great People to Great Performance"- Hudson Global Slogan
Since 2012, Hudson Global's (NASDAQ:HSON) slogan has not matched the performance of the upper-level management team given an accumulation of $35 million in operating losses and 50% stock price decline while peers have flourished. Fast forward to 2014 and Hudson Global is a company in transition and attitude adjustment.
On May 28th of 2014, Lone Star Value Management, an activist shareholder who owns 7.4% of the stock, won a proxy battle to replace two board members. It all started in October of 2013 when Lone Star Value began purchasing shares while simultaneously negotiating with the board to add two board members. The negotiations failed which lead to an expensive proxy battle to remove two board members. Lone Star won the proxy contest with a whopping 82% of shares outstanding in favor of adding the CEO of Lone Star Value Management, Jeff Eberwein, and Richard Coleman. More importantly, Lone Star laid out plans of action to improve governance on the board.
In this article, I will go into detail about the following:
1. Detail the financial and non-financial impact of what Lone Star has achieved since May 2014.
2. List a plan of action of what else may occur in the next 6 to 9 months.
3. Provide financial models for 2015 and 2016 to show a smaller albeit healthier Hudson Global.
4. Compare the business to competitors and valuation scenarios.

Changes since Lone Star Value voted into the board

· Declassified board by 2017 given the past by-laws of the company had three-year terms of some current board members.
· Sold the eDiscovery business for $23 million. The division was mismanaged given its more than 20% revenue decline from 2013 to 2014 and expanding negative operating margins. The performance of eDiscovery should have been enough to fire the management team. Nevertheless, the company was able to sell a money losing division for .28 price to sales. Although low, the business was also losing money and will take time to turn around. Below is a projection of what eDiscovery was projected to perform in 2014:
Estimates for 2014
E-discovery
Dec-14
% of Sales
Growth
Dec-13
% of Sales
Revenues
$ 83.00
-20%
$ 102.00
Gross margin
$ 13.00
15.85%
164%
$ 4.93
4.83%
EBIT
$ (3.00)
-3.66%
-340%
$ 1.25
1.23%
Sales Transaction
$ 23.00
Valuation Price to Sales
0.28
*Projections are my numbers given the run rate of the last three-quarters and conference call.
· Shut down the Swedish division of the company. I would not be surprised if we start to see more branches close down this year.
Estimates for 2014
Sweden Division
Dec-14
% of Sales
Growth
Dec-13
% of Sales
Revenues
$ 1.70
-26%
$ 2.30
Gross margin
$ 1.00
58.82%
-44%
$ 1.80
78.26%
EBIT
$ (1.20)
-70.59%
-20%
$ (1.50)
-65.22%
*Projections are my numbers given the run rate of the last three quarters.
· Protected the $300 million in net operating loss carry forward tax benefit by instituting a change of control provision at 5%. Also, avoids hostile takeover as the stock price continued to decline.
· Removed compensation of cash and stock awards of the board until the company is profitable. If the board is no longer receiving compensation until the company is profitable, then the company will save at least $767,000 (mixture of cash and stock) or .02 cents per share.
· Instituted executive stock award grants that are more aligned with shareholders when the company improves margins and doesn't burn any cash. In 2014 and 2015 only one executive was awarded options, the CFO, which may be a sign of the CEO being out the door if he does not perform quicker.
· Firing of General Counsel Latham Williams at a cost of at least $400,000 or about 1 penny a share. They will have to find a replacement, which will cost a few hundred thousand a year, so if anything, this may be mute but at least we know they will be on Lone Star Value Management's side.

Why hasn't the market rewarded Hudson Global for its efforts, and what will change that?

Even after all of these positive initiatives, the stock has declined more than 30% from Lone Star Value Management's cost basis. Some of the reasons below may explain why:
Business related:
1. Ever since Lone Star joined, investors expected a quick turnaround or an overhaul of the management team given Lone Star was consistently criticizing the management team during the proxy battle. Perhaps some investors thought it was a bit hypocritical for Lone Star to talk poorly about the CEO but then still allow him to run the company after joining the board.
2. Company is spending $7 million for Alix Partners to help save the company between $10 to $14 million on an annualized basis starting by the second quarter of 2015 (as per the November 10th conference call). What is mindboggling is why the CEO didn't do on his own throughout the three years he was in charge without having to spend $7 million or .20 cents a share. This hiring of Alix Partners just shows how the upper-level management team may not be in tune with its lower level management team.
3. eDiscovery sold below expectations. The company's financial reporting is dismal and investors thought eDiscovery was worth more than $23 million. Also, the decline in revenues of the division compared to 2013 demonstrated how poorly it was running segments of its business.
4. Most of the revenues and gross profit is outside of the USA and given recent currency fluctuations there is concern of headwinds to achieving profitability.
Stock related:
The purchases by Lone Star in the open market may have artificially created a floor on the stock given the continuous purchases above $3.40 a share from August to November 2014; you can view the frequency here. Also, ever since the company instituted provisions to limit holders from acquiring more stock, the stock has declined. For example, on January 16th, 2015 the stock closed at $2.75 and on February 11th it hit $2.05. The last time Lone Star made an open market purchase was November 14th, chances are the board were in the process of implementing the provision and was barred from purchasing shares. This is a 100% guess because I don't see why Lone Store wouldn't want to buy more shares at a 30% discount. He is a value investor, and if burgers are 30% cheaper he won't stop buying unless he was not allowed to.
Although, these concerns from investors are warranted, I like the fact that investors today can get a stronger board, improving cost cutting mindset and to top it off a 30% discount to the activist shareholder's cost basis.

What are the next steps for Hudson Global?

There is still more work to do with the company. Below is a list of what I believe the company should do to increase margins and revenues and get the company back to consistent profitability. Although, some of the suggestions are macro I contacted veterans in the HR industry that advised on operational improvements since some of them stopped working with Hudson for various reasons.


1. Determine which other branches around the world need to be closed. Some branches were running on old ideas and weren't allowed to adjust to the market. The branches needed to be empowered more to be more entrepreneurial in their market.
2. Become more aggressive in offering services in different sectors of the economy. Economies are changing rapidly and so is the amount of talent needed. As per the last call, the company has been growing well in the past three years with its Talent Management and RPO or Recruitment Process Outsourcing that are a much higher margin business. After several years, the higher margin businesses are starting to become more meaningful to the bottom line than before, the elimination of eDiscovery has made it clearer what was dragging down the gross margins.
3. This suggestion is more for the benefit of Investors: Provide a better presentation of the company's financial reporting. Perhaps I am not as smart as the CFO of the company but there is a better way to break down the financials of the company. It is very difficult to determine how well certain regions and the services within those regions are performing, no matter how many annual reports or presentations I read to connect the dots, it was just too difficult. Below is an example of how I think the financials should be reported:
a. Breakdown of revenues by region and then within each region the service (all of them)
Revenues
Americas
Europe
Asia
Temporary Contracting
Temporary Contracting
Temporary Contracting
Permanent Recruitment
Permanent Recruitment
Permanent Recruitment
Talent Management
Talent Management
Talent Management
RPO
RPO
RPO
Other
Other
Other
b. Then repeat that same table above for cost, gross margin, SGA, EBITDA, DA, and EBIT. Then, one-line item for Corporate (provide a breakdown of salary, rent, marketing, travel expenses, etc.) then interest, taxes and net income. Not only would this be transparent to investors but also to the entire company. Everyone will know what they are accountable.
4. Reduce SGA significantly. Hudson's SGA is severely bloated compared to other companies. Comparables are running at around a 25% to 30% SGA expense as a % of revenues while Hudson's is running at a whopping 39% as of the last quarter. There is a lot of fat to cut out of this company. Although the CEO is Spanish (I am half Spanish), it does not mean it should operate like Spain. The company needs to adopt a "cost containment" mentality as if tomorrow there is going to be a recession.
5. Give the CEO until June of this year to determine whether he is the right person for the job. Lone Star received partial control of the board at the end of May and investors were under the impression that he would be booted but hasn't. Perhaps, Lone Star is giving him the benefit of the doubt and one year to prove if he will perform better with new oversight. That year is coming up in June.
Hudson Global vs. its peers
Before we look at financial modeling, it is important to understand the industry as to what other companies are doing. The table below shows comps of competitors some companies are not listed in the USA, like Randstad, which are global leaders in the industry.
If you notice, Hudson is at the lowest price to sales valuation mainly given its negative net and operating margins. However, what is most interesting is that the Hudson's gross margins is ranked 6th out of 11th that demonstrates the potential improvement on the operational side of the business. In fact, I do not think it is impossible for the company to achieve 3% to 6% operating margins given its already expanding gross margins simply from sellingeDiscovery and shutting down its Swedish division.

Below are financials for 2014 to 2016 less eDiscovery and Sweden:

2014
% of Sales
2015
% of Sales
2014 vs. 2015
2016
% of Sales
2015 vs. 2016
Temporary Contracting
Revenues
$ 385.00
68.75%
$ 370.00
64.91%
-4%
$ 360.00
62.61%
-3%
Costs
$ 330.00
58.93%
$ 310.00
54.39%
-6%
$ 297.00
51.65%
-4%
Gross Margin
$ 55.00
14.29%
$ 60.00
16.22%
9%
$ 63.00
17.50%
5%
Permanent Recruitment
Revenues
$ 125.00
21.74%
$ 145.00
25.44%
16%
$ 155.00
26.96%
7%
Costs
$ 3.00
2.40%
$ 3.50
2.41%
17%
$ 4.00
2.58%
14%
Gross Margin
$ 122.00
97.60%
$ 141.50
97.59%
16%
$ 151.00
97.42%
7%
Other
Revenues
$ 50.00
8.70%
$ 55.00
9.65%
10%
$ 60.00
10.43%
9%
Costs
$ 11.00
22.00%
$ 12.00
21.82%
9%
$ 13.25
22.08%
10%
Gross Margin
$ 39.00
78.00%
$ 43.00
78.18%
10%
$ 46.75
77.92%
9%
SGA All divisions
$ 228.00
40.71%
$ 220.00
38.60%
-4%
$ 210.00
36.52%
-5%
Reorganization Expense
$ 8.00
$ 7.00
-13%
$ 7.00
0%
Totals
Revenues
$ 560.00
$ 570.00
2%
$ 575.00
1%
Costs
$ 344.00
61.43%
$ 325.50
57.11%
-5%
$ 314.25
54.65%
-3%
Gross Margin
$ 216.00
38.57%
$ 244.50
42.89%
13%
$ 260.75
45.35%
7%
SGA + Reorganization Exp.
$ 236.00
42.14%
$ 227.00
39.82%
-4%
$ 217.00
37.74%
-4%
EBIT
$ (20.00)
-3.57%
$ 17.50
3.07%
-188%
$ 43.75
7.61%
150%
Interest
0
0
0
Tax rate
20%
20%
20.16%
Taxes
$ -
$ 3.50
$ 8.75
Net Income
$ (20.00)
$ 14.00
-170%
$ 35.00
150%
Basic EPS
$ (0.61)
$ 0.43
$ 1.07
Shares outstanding
32.7300
million
Notes: I assumed 20% tax rate given a mix of international divisions having to report taxes and virtually 0% in the USA given its net operating loss carry forwards. Again, this is a guess and may be conservative with my rate.
The model above shows the three primary segments as reported by the company. However, the company doesn't split out what is Talent Management and RPO which has been the fastest growing segments of the business with the highest margins. We can only assume that it is under the Permanent Recruitment and "Other" business segment that is why you see growth in 2015 and 2016.


The initiatives to grow revenue in the "Permanent" and "Other," as well as gross margins by 700 basis points by 2016, are due to the following:
1. Alix Partners able to reduce costs by 10 to 14 million annualized by doing the following:
a. Reducing headcount by 81 positions.
b. Increasing commission rates to salespeople to motivate them more to sell higher margin services such as RPO and Talent Management.
c. Optimization of real estate
d. Integration of support services and systems at corporate and regional level.
2. Alix payment was over several quarters, $7 million, so in 2015 there should be at least 10 million in savings since most of the expense was in 2014 with some remaining in the first quarter of 2015.
3. The America region grew well in 2014 and will continue to accelerate as more and more RPO deals get completed. On average it takes six months to finalize, and RPO contracts and 2014 showed the effects of the investment made in 2013 to hire more RPO staff. 2015 and 2016 could be better given Americas has a lot of potential.
4. Management team has brought in new directors in almost every region, and we will increasingly see the revenue and margin benefits since it takes six months to finalize a contract for services such as RPO. On the second quarter, conference calls the CEO highlighted improvements by the new managing directors hired within the past 1 to 2 years.
Asia
Grew GM by 30%
France
Grew GM by 6% and turned division profitable
UK
Grew GM by 13% in both term and permanent
Belgium (not new)
Grew GM by 12% and doubled profitability
All of this didn't come cheap as the net new sales people that the company added was over 170. It seems, Hudson's CEO was able to recruit better quality upper-level talent from major competitors to join Hudson, perhaps that may be why he hasn't been fired.
5. I have also modeled a small decline in the contract revenues, given more resources invested in the other two segments. RPO and Talent Management are very high margin so even a 5% revenue increase would impact the bottom line significantly.
The combination of cost cutting as well growth in higher margin segments is the perfect recipe for margin expansion. Long-time investors may be thinking "we have heard this story before" to them I say "this time it is truly different."
Some investors may think it is farfetched that Hudson can earn .43 cents a share in 2015 and 1.07 cents a share in 2016. However, Alix partners alone cost .36 cents a share, board and executive compensation was at least 5 cents and when you add on top of that the cost cutting initiatives, removal of less profitable business segments, and no eDiscovery, you get a smaller more profitable Hudson Global. Once Hudson produces consistent numbers, analysts on Wall Street will pick up coverage (there are only 1 to 2 analysts covering the stock) and shine the value that Lone Star is pounding the table.

My price target

After analyzing the competitors and producing a model for 2015 and 2016, I wanted to compare what HSON would be trading compared to its competitors.
Current Stats
Current Price
$ 2.34
Market Cap
$ 76.59
Net Cash
$ 35.00
Enterprise Value
$ 41.59
Hudson Global Valuations
2015
2016
EV to Sales
0.073
0.072
Price to Earnings Ratio
5.47
2.19
Earnings Yield 2015
33.66%
84.16%
Comps
HSON Worst Case
HSON Best Case
P/E Ratio
15 to 20
$ 6.42
$ 21.39
EV to Sales
.10 to 1
$ 2.81
$ 18.64
Weighted Worst/Best
$ 4.61
$ 20.01
Given Hudson's current price of $2.34, the worst case scenario is upside to about $2.80 a share or 20% while the best case scenario is about $21 a share or 800% upside. Nevertheless, Hudson Global does not deserve the high end of the range given the difference in services and margins. However, it would be fair to value the company at the midpoint of comps given its expanding margins, from cost cutting and growth, as well as Lone Star's oversight.
In conclusion, I don't think it is unreasonable for Hudson to trade at .3x to .4x EV to Sales by the 4th quarter of this year to mid-2016 that would imply a $9 to $11 price target or 280% to 370% upside. Let's also keep in mind that Hudson Global is Lone Star Value's Top 5 holding in their portfolio and are extremely motivated to receive full value on Hudson. Short-term traders can take comfort that Lone Star is down 30% from today's price while medium to long-term holders can hold out for bigger gains with Lone Star on their side. Other potential catalysts would be a complete breakup of the company to a larger player that is possible given the industry is ripe for consolidation. Nevertheless, my thesis is on operational improvement that I am confident will happen which in turn will reward shareholders.
Editor's Note: This article covers one or more stocks trading at less than $1 per share and/or with less than a $100 million market cap. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.

No comments:

Post a Comment